Moral of the Story: Both Liberals and Conservatives can be jerks

In the world of the web trolls, this was an unqualified call to arms.
When Big Apple Pizza owner Scott Van Nuzer bear-hugged and hoisted President Obama off the ground during their brief meeting in Fort Pierce, Fla., Sunday, it wasn't only the (startled) press corps that took notice.

"Talk about committing business suicide. After picking up Obama, your (sic) books are gonna be in the red pretty soon. Not too smart," wrote one commenter, who delivered his one star (out of five) rating from Cottonwood, Ariz., about 2,200 miles away.

But just as quickly as Big Apple's stars disappeared, they were back. The backlash to the backlash was delivered swiftly. By late afternoon, Van Nuzer's pizza spot was back up in the rankings, registering a full five stars.

Another user, this one checking in from Brooklyn, N.Y., 1,165 miles away, chirped: "Really, conservatards? You try to trash a man's business because he likes a different political candidate than you? What scum you all are. Go crawl back in your holes. SCOTT VAN DUZER IS MY HERO!"

Of the 229 comments listed on the page (30 of them "filtered," one removed for violating terms of service), only two were published pre-bear hug, the most recent coming in 2010.

The oldest review, the first posted on the Big Apple page, delivers a less partisan evaluation.

"Nice variety of food for lunch or dinner," Bob O. from hometown Fort Pierce wrote on Dec. 26, 2009. "Love the Pizza, wings, subs and the best strombolie in town. Great atmosphere in newly renovated dinning area, and flat screen TV's to enjoy sports. Family setting as Scott VanDuzer (sic), Fish and the rest of the staff make you feel right at home. 'Special People' and good food make for a local favorite."

you're a jerk if you try to ruin this guy's business, and you're a jerk if you use the term "conservatard".

I would think we would be supportive of the expression of free speech, even if we do not support the message of that particular free speech.

Why is a protest against Obama via e-review somehow make one a "jerk", yet a protest in the streets that causes mass mayhem and illegallity, like occupy, viewed as a patriotic expression of right to speech, protest and assemble?

Free speech permits one to be vocally supportive of a politician.

It also allows other to express their displeasure via an equal use of their own free speech, in this case, a negative review online.

I would think we would be supportive of the expression of free speech, even if we do not support the message of that particular free speech.

Well, this isn't someone saying, "hey, I disagree." this was people trying to lower the guys Yelp rating to affect the traffic and business he gets. They were actively trying to ruin his business because he had different political beliefs. To me that = jerks

TLDR: this isn't about message, it is about method.

Why is a protest against Obama via e-review somehow make one a "jerk", yet a protest in the streets that causes mass mayhem and illegallity, like occupy, viewed as a patriotic expression of right to speech, protest and assemble?

you'll have to ask someone who thinks that Occupy was patriotic. I can't answer for something I don't believe.

But if it helps, most of them were jerks too

Free speech permits one to be vocally supportive of a politician.

correct

It also allows other to express their displeasure via an equal use of their own free speech, in this case, a negative review online.

agree to disagree. free speech extends you the right up until it becomes harmful to someone else. In the case of these reviews, this was an effort designed to hurt this person's business, to lower his rating and cause him financial harm, not to express their own beliefs.

I would be curious if you feel that libel/defamation/slander laws are also a deterrant to free speech.

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

How is this any different than the Chick-Fil-A protest?

I think the Chick-Fil-A protests were also pretty stupid, and that guy who tried to make his point to that girl working the drive-thru was a jerk.

agree to disagree. free speech extends you the right up until it becomes harmful to someone else.

Are you serious?

Ok Hitler, thanks for your point of view.

Suffice it to say that you're 100% wrong here. I WOULD say that, but the State may deem that as doing you harm, perhaps emotionally, and hence a warrant would be issued for my immediate arrest and extermination.

Ho-le-****.

I would be curious if you feel that libel/defamation/slander laws are also a deterrant to free speech.

Of course they are a "deterrant".

btw, I LOVE You after-the-fact denouncement of teh Chick-Fil-A protest, and silence on Occupy (where real, meaningful harm was done, 10,000 times over).

It's thread like this that remind me why politics is so deeply fail.

Kinda like the Liberal Black Millitant who previously denoiunced every "birther" as a hateful racist, today (on 9/11) have a 9/11 Truther Show encouraging others to explore how G.W. Bush was behind and planned 9/11.

You're all a joke, frankly. Not a real, deeply held, non-hypocritical, non-party-based position amongst the god damn lot of you.

Suffice it to say that you're 100% wrong here. I WOULD say that, but the State may deem that as doing you harm, perhaps emotionally, and hence a warrant would be issued for my immediate arrest and extermination.

Ho-le-****.

Of course they are a "deterrant".

btw, I LOVE You after-the-fact denouncement of teh Chick-Fil-A protest, and silence on Occupy (where real, meaningful harm was done, 10,000 times over).

It's thread like this that remind me why politics is so deeply fail.

Kinda like the Liberal Black Millitant who previously denoiunced every "birther" as a hateful racist, today (on 9/11) have a 9/11 Truther Show encouraging others to explore how G.W. Bush was behind and planned 9/11.

You're all a joke, frankly. Not a real, deeply held, non-hypocritical, non-party-based position amongst the god damn lot of you.

Now that I think of it, you're right. Between the two of us I am obviously the angry poster.

Interesting that you only post things like this when your side suffers.

and then - "both sides suck". yup

Right. I have a side. Lol. You guys are awesome. You and 'fish only seem to defend the right. Like how outraged you were over that defaced Wikipedia page. Here you're just mad that this article was posted. It's pretty awesome to see the true bias in this forum.

The best part is, here I'm pointing out what a few people who were anti-Obama did and instead of saying "look at these conservatives, they're jerks" I make sure to include that liberals are jerks too, and that somehow makes me pro-liberal and protective of them?

Right. I have a side. Lol. You guys are awesome. You and 'fish only seem to defend the right. Like how outraged you were over that defaced Wikipedia page. Here you're just mad that this article was posted. It's pretty awesome to see the true bias in this forum.

The best part is, here I'm pointing out what a few people who were anti-Obama did and instead of saying "look at these conservatives, they're jerks" I make sure to include that liberals are jerks too, and that somehow makes me pro-liberal and protective of them?

Now that I think of it, you're right. Between the two of us I am obviously the angry poster.

You made a case that any opinion expressed that could "hurt" someone else should be illegal.

I make no excuses for laughing that one right out of the discussion with as much derision as I could muster.

I fully appreciate words can harm, some so much as to be illegal (slander, fire crowed theatre, etc) but to restict freedom of speech as you seem to imply here should be done is a legitimate equivalency to previous historic totalitarianist regimes, and is 100% unacceptable. especially in an era where "harm" is on e of those fluid words that gets a new definition by the day.

Literally, in your world, I could be arrested for this post, because it "harmed" you by making you feel emotionally distressed, thus unable to work today, causing you both emotional and fiscal "harm".

We have freedom to speak, and others have freedom to speak in kind. Both can have negative repurcussions, rand rightfully so. I reject outright the policing of opinions or the counter-feedback those opinions generate.

When a business takes a stand for something outside the business, such freedback and protest is both inevitable, and wholely outside the right of teh State to sanction.

Originally Posted by piney

You and 'fish only seem to defend the right.

I am sure quite a few righties would disagree with you on that claim here.

You made a case that any opinion expressed that could "hurt" someone else should be illegal.

that is a bold face lie, a stupid bit of conjecture, and a strawman argument. I never once said it should be illegal.

That would be as idiotic as if I said that your position was that bearing false witness is protected by free speech.

I make no excuses for laughing that one right out of the discussion with as much derision as I could muster.

I am proud that you are able to conjure up an imaginary statement by me and then laugh it off.

I fully appreciate words can harm, some so much as to be illegal (slander, fire crowed theatre, etc) but to restict freedom of speech as you seem to imply here should be done is a legitimate equivalency to previous historic totalitarianist regimes, and is 100% unacceptable. especially in an era where "harm" is on e of those fluid words that gets a new definition by the day.

Only, I don't believe that. Never said anything should be illegal. Never implied it. I think, though, if I feel someone is acting like a jerk, then they shouldn't be able to hide behind "free speech" as a defense.

Can the detractors do what they did, of course, but; why then can't I make the observation that it is kind of a dick thing to do?

Somehow that translated to "ZOMG! HE WANTS TO RESTRICT FREE SPEECH! ZOMG!!"

Literally, in your world, I could be arrested for this post, because it "harmed" you by making you feel emotionally distressed, thus unable to work today, causing you both emotional and fiscal "harm".

Again, all predicated on the lie you told yourself and believe that I said speech should be illegal.

The only way I can think of making my position any clearer is "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"

It seems we agree that there are certain examples where speech is not protected under the first amendment. Bearing false witness, yelling fire, etc.

We have freedom to speak, and others have freedom to speak in kind. Both can have negative repurcussions, rand rightfully so. I reject outright the policing of opinions or the counter-feedback those opinions generate.

When a business takes a stand for something outside the business, such freedback and protest is both inevitable, and wholely outside the right of teh State to sanction.

I think I understand now, you must have misread "people can be jerks" with "people should be in jail". I get it, both words start with "J".

My point was I don't approve of the method used in this article, trying to ruin someone's business with false negative reviews, and saying it should be considered free speech. Hence "those guys are jerks."

If these guys said, "We want to find like-minded people and boycott his store because of his political beliefs." I wouldn't have any issue with that. But by saying, "let's lie about the quality of his restaurant, lower his rating, so we can run him out of business for his political beliefs" yeah, that irks me.

That is where our disagreement is, not on what free speech is and if people should go to prison (some ridiculous made up drama you needed to conjure up, I guess to perpetuate the idea that you are last protector of personal liberty) but the method being used.

I said they were jerks, you countered that.

I only brought up libel/slander because I thought it would be an interesting conversation about what should and should not be free speech, how far should we let slander go, etc. Not because I had a side, but because I thought it would make for an interesting conversation. If you could stop chasing windmills once in a while, maybe you'd pick up on that.

I would think we would be supportive of the expression of free speech, even if we do not support the message of that particular free speech.

Why is a protest against Obama via e-review somehow make one a "jerk", yet a protest in the streets that causes mass mayhem and illegallity, like occupy, viewed as a patriotic expression of right to speech, protest and assemble?

Free speech permits one to be vocally supportive of a politician.

It also allows other to express their displeasure via an equal use of their own free speech, in this case, a negative review online.

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

How is this any different than the Chick-Fil-A protest?

Because it involves falsely giving the business a low rating on a site where its rating is based on food, service and decor rather than on political views, and the Chik-Fil-A protesters never tried to denigrate the quality of the business as a means to cause it harm, just accurately represented the political views of the owner.

Anyone wants to boycott the pizza place because the owner supports Obama? Go ahead. It's stupid and absurd, but go ahead. But this? Too far.

Because it involves falsely giving the business a low rating on a site where its rating is based on food, service and decor rather than on political views, and the Chik-Fil-A protesters never tried to denigrate the quality of the business as a means to cause it harm, just accurately represented the political views of the owner.

Anyone wants to boycott the pizza place because the owner supports Obama? Go ahead. It's stupid and absurd, but go ahead. But this? Too far.

But Chick-fil-A protesters said that their chicken sandwichs were served with a side of extra hatred. And everyone knows that extra hatred ruins the taste of good chicken.

that is a bold face lie, a stupid bit of conjecture, and a strawman argument. I never once said it should be illegal.

Maybe you should read what you write.

Originally Posted by piney

free speech extends you the right up until it becomes harmful to someone else.

Pretty clear that your positionw as that spech rights end where "harm" starts, and "harming" others is generally illegal. So you're position was one of limitation of rights due to harm being caused, said limitation which can only be imposed by teh State.

So no, it's not a lie. either you do not understand what the emaning of the words you wrote quoted above, or you misspke. either way, means very little.

Somehow that translated to "ZOMG! HE WANTS TO RESTRICT FREE SPEECH! ZOMG!!"

I'll quote it again, for reference:

Originally Posted by piney

free speech extends you the right up until it becomes harmful to someone else.

Rather clear IMO that yes, you were supporting a new limitation on the definition of free speech, that speech that caused "harm" as you define it was not, in fact, free speech at all, hence not protected speech.

Again, all predicated on the lie you told yourself and believe that I
said speech should be illegal.